“Letter to the editor”
I believe it’s obvious the editor of this letter is bias and
most certainly owns multiply firearms. Although it may be true that this law
”one gun a month” may not be able to be directly related to crime statistics, that
support the idea of less guns mean less crime, but it seems to me that it is
common sense. A very simple question that I would ask you, is, why would anyone
need to have the desire to buy more than
one gun a month?
That would be
twelve guns in one year. To me that is just an obsession or even an addiction,
and everyone knows that anything in excess is not a good thing. Fewer guns out
in the public and
the laws that govern them can only be a good thing.
Look at total
violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. Their rate is now about twice as high
in Canada as in the U.S. The violent crime rate has dropped markedly in the
U.S. since the early 1990s, but has remained basically stable here. More data
is available in Professor Gary Mauser’s Fraser Forum article. The
Brady Center argues that when the civilian population has more access to
guns, more teens and children die from gun wounds. For example, during a
year when over 5,000 teens and children died from gun wounds in the USA, in
Great Britain, where gun ownership is very restricted, 19 teens and children
died from gun wounds.
This is a
subject of debate that will probably go on until the end of time. I’m a gun
owner, Mossberg 500 and I love skeet shooting. But if there wasn’t any gun
control, what would stop me or anyone from going out and buying a fully
automatic weapon. We all need to show control in all aspects of our lives,
because without it there is only anarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment